New To the Sub?

I had my first SE interaction! During the thanksgiving family celebrations, I was able to bring up a relevant topic based on the conversation happening around me, ask questions, discuss briefly, recognize a sliver of doxastic openness, allow them to ponder, reiterate the idea that it’s ok to not know 100% of everything. And move the conversation along to another topic.

This was regarding science and the age of earth vs religion and young earthers. The entire family (both sides!) came out of a fundamentalist cult. They no longer associate with the cult but still profess to retain all the beliefs.

2 people came up to me later with further questions and we discussed in more detail with more questions and had more doxastic openness. It was a great opportunity!

Hi people. What books do you recommend to get myself started on street epistemology?

Sorry if this question has already been addressed.

I’m looking for a YouTuber (or other platform) that does a good job doing street epistemology on MAGA followers.

Since the election, I’ve been trying to learn as much as I can about social psychology, misinformation, and epistemology. I want to understand the ins and outs of how something like this can happen.

I’ve watched a bunch of SE content in the past, but it was all centered around god/religion. I know the principles are still the same, but it would be nice to see it applied to political beliefs.

Let's assume someone holds a horrific extreme viewpoint. Violence, hostility, hatred -- all the unwanted wash that flows through the gutters of misery.

How would they change their minds when:

• Nobody remembers what they used to espouse as true.
• Only a few people they're alienated from remember.
• Only a community they're alienated from remembers their anonymous name.
• Only immediate friends and family remember.
• Only those who used to hate them and will never forgive remember.
• A lot of people remember and will not forgive or forget.
• A preponderance of people remember in public life.
• An overwhelming number of people remember and it's always a search result or random discovery away.

These kinda suggest a tier of anonymity and the reflexive need for a person with an extreme view to escape the scenario to distance themselves from their past views.

This ties into the concept of forgiveness as a pathway to changing the mind and behaviour, both forgiveness of the self and the forgiveness of the community.

Also tied into the concept of rehabilitation over retribution -- allowing people with extreme views and exit instead of antagonizing them regardless of positive changes in viewpoint.

The permanent availability of past views may continuously bring it back up, giving critics ammunition to attack someone for a view they no longer have, creating an incentive to not change your mind, because you will be punished either way and even your allies will not defend you. So you might as well stick with fellow extremists who will defend you, right?

How do you think the loss of anonymity and information permanence affects changing minds?

Hi SE people, y'all are cool. I found this community in my search for help engaging my relatives as they seem to radicalize further into fundamentalist conspiracy theories every year. I really value compassionate curiosity and I profoundly resonate with the ethos of SE.

One of the reasons I have a lot of sympathy for conspiracy theorists is that I myself have plenty of fairly fringe positions that I'd guess the majority of people would dismiss as pretty crazy. That's cool with me, and means I get plenty of practice thinking them through!

One thing I've been really curious about is sitting in the interlocutor seat of an SE conversation, both just to cultivate more empathy and understanding for that position also to challenge my own beliefs. If anyone want to flex their skills with me, I would welcome a conversation, whether through DM's or here.

Here are some of my more unusual beliefs/positions, below. They are interlinked, so I'm open to discussing the underlying assumption under them (we'd have to figure it out together) or tackling them one at a time. Have at it!

- I am an anarchist. That means, to me, I don't support the formation of any system of nation-state, because I believe that state formation necessitates an inequitable distribution of power. You could say more fundamentally that I oppose hierarchies and any system of organizing a society that facilitates hierarchies (this may be the core belief that undergirds the remaining positions, below).

- I support the literal abolition of police and prisons.

- I am an anti-capitalist.

- I support land back and reparations.

- I am a feminist.

I would rate my confidence in the above positions at around 70-90%, to the extent that I know anything to be true. Thanks y'all!

Edit: wow, thank you all for your awesome questions! I really enjoyed this conversation. I will try to come back soon to answer those I haven't yet. Thanks to everyone who engaged with so much good faith and thoughtfulness. I learned a ton and will be thinking of all of y'all's questions for a long time!

November has been a month of forward momentum, with key discussions around improving meeting accessibility, finalizing new websites, and expanding community engagement. From planning SEI’s 2025 goals to reimagining video content with AI, we’re making strides to strengthen our foundation and innovate for the future.

12 November 2024

Hey everyone, I wanted to share some highlights from what we’ve been working on this past month. A big part of our recent discussions revolved around making our meetings easier to access. We’ve been running into limitations with our current setup, so we’re exploring better streaming options that keep things simple for everyone. On the planning side, we’re gearing up for a focused session to map out SEI’s 2025 goals, especially around fundraising and organizational growth. Financially, we’re in good shape, though we had a big annual insurance expense this month. End-of-year giving is coming up, so we’re looking at ways to connect more with donors and make the most of it.

We’re also looking to grow the team, especially with finding a new Treasurer since our current one is stepping down soon. It’s a high trust position with a vital role, and we’re in the market for a replacement. If you have accounting skills and experience with non-profit organizations, please reach out to us by emailing contact@streetepistemologyinternational.org. 

As our current Treasurer, Georgia Phelps has been instrumental in building our financial systems from the ground up and has greatly enriched our internal discussions with her extensive organizational experience. I will deeply miss her insights, and we wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

On the development side, three new websites are almost ready to launch—something I’m really excited about. For the Navigating Beliefs course, we’ve made solid progress, and while there’s still a lot to do, we’re adjusting Phase II (Modules 7 - 14) to be completed by the end of 2025 (instead of this year), so everyone knows what to expect. I’m also really looking forward to holding regular meetings with other groups who are neutral on the application of Street Epistemology to better align on principles, projects, and visions.

Lastly, we’re diving into some creative and innovative projects. One shift we’re considering is replacing our longstanding Video of the Month feature with AI-curated highlights to spotlight SE content in a more dynamic way (look for an SE Podcast episode soon showcasing this). AI is also shaping up to be a useful tool for analyzing videos and even summarizing our conversations. On the research side, the study we’re collaborating on is coming together nicely, with backend development proving tedious yet almost done. And as we plan for 2025, we’re exploring ways to expand SE’s reach through events and partnerships. Lots of exciting things are on the horizon, and I’m grateful for all the energy and support that makes it happen. Let’s keep building!

Support these efforts by making a donation.

That’s all for this update! I’m fortunate to be working alongside an amazing team of passionate and skilled individuals, tackling everything from course development to website launches—all with the goal of making Street Epistemology more engaging and accessible. Your continued support means the world as we push forward and bring these exciting projects to a world that clearly needs them.

Regards,

Anthony Magnabosco
Executive Director, Street Epistemology International

Street Epistemology Linktree

I recently felt sad to run into some acquainances who were upset about the election results. They said, *How can so many people vote against their own best interests?* When I replied I wasn't sure that team blue represented voters' best interests -- whew! To clarify, I'm not partisan. I was just surprised that it wasn't even part of their reality that people who voted differently might be voting in their own interests. Their belief was quite rigid that anyone who voted differently than they did MUST be voting against their own best interests.

I would like to engage in a neutral exploration of this belief [that a majority of voters voted against their own interests] but I'm not even sure where to begin.

Any advice how to broach this belief? Types of questions?